12/12/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

John Dubin, 1405 Skyline Park Loop, testified in favor of the . appea 1 . He noted the use of slander by the proponents and said the opposition had not done that. He asked a rhetorical question as to who is the City of Eugene, answering it was the people who live in the neighborhoods who pay taxes and own homes. He felt these people should be able to make decisions on how the land in their area is used. In his opinion, the City was going downhill very fast in how its decisions were made. Lloyd Lovell, 4477 Dillard Road, urged Council to implement the policies of preserving the character and distinctiveness of various neighborhoods. He noted there were some kinds of deve- lopment in neighborhoods that would be impossible to undo, noting again the unique character and attractiveness of this particular a rea. He said residents of Eugene were encouraged to use options, citing the example of the many options in the school system. He urged Council to consider such options available for property owners. Mr. Saul responded the statement that a major partition procedure should have been followed implied in that notion that a different decision would have been reached or a different procedure would have been followed. He stated there was no difference, and that City Code does not prpvide for public hearing or notification to abutting property owners except in cases of modification (there is considered to be no modification if classified as a major partition). Notice of the Clark minor partition was sent to the Southeast Firs . Neighborhood Organization July 5,1977, and no response was received until the Planning Commission meeting October 10,1977. In regard to the reference to the prior Zdroy minor partition, he said that was a matter which had been appealed to the City Council two times in that Mr. Zdroy did not wish to dedicate a portion of the proper- ty as required. City Council upheld that dedication. Ms. Smith wondered which portion of the streets were dedicated. Jim Saul said the portions of the Zdroy minor partition and Clark minor partition were dedicated, but the street was unimproved. Ms. Smith then wondered if the neighborhood property owners were noti- fied of the street dedication. Mr. Saul replied that the abutting property owners were notified because the original application in- volved a modification to the Code. In rebuttal, Mr. Cadbury said it was not the sincerity of the group that was the question but due process and what the Code provided. He said the major point to be made was that Mr. Saul argued there was no different process to be followed between a major and minor partition. He continued a major partition involves creation of streets. When the property owners affected by the street system became aware of what was happening, they were told the streets were already created. The group he represented felt the City owed it a chance to talk about those streets. In regard to Fasano e 12/12/77 - 6 Q05